Ted Cruz’s question to Dianne Feinstein regarding the constitutionality of her gun law should be required reading for conservatives

Ted Cruz

Every day, I am more impressed with Ted Cruz.  He’s smart, he’s courageous, he’s knowledgeable, and he’s deeply loyal to the Constitution.  I understand that he went to Harvard Law School, rather than my alma mater, The University of Texas School of Law in Austin, but I can forgive him that failing because he’s so damn smart and intellectually brave.

Cruz couldn’t have asked better questions yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Dianne Feinstein’s proposed gun control bill.  You’ve already heard those questions.  DiFi’s huffy, offended response was the only one available to her, because he’d shut the door on her intellectually.  Thus, all she could say was “Who do you think you’re talking to, little boy?  I was writing unconstitutional laws before you were born!”  That was fun.

(Let me be catty for a minute. DiFi says she’s not a sixth grader. Hoo-boy, is that obvious! She looks like a mummy. She was once a very attractive younger woman, but she’s morphed into a creepily scary old woman. Okay, I needed to get that out of my system.)

Typically, though, it was Rush Limbaugh who summed up most perfectly what Ted asked, what it meant, and why DiFI had just enough firing brain cells to realize what a devastating attack Cruz had leveled at her bill.  Here’s what Rush had to say this morning, which started with him playing a tape of Cruz’s brilliant question:

CRUZ: The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is: Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

RUSH: Are you applauding, folks?

Are you standing up and cheering here?

This is just not done! These people are never called on this. Here’s Dianne Feinstein with her list of approved guns. Dianne Feinstein, California senator, former mayor of San Francisco. Okay, fine. Great resume. You and you alone are gonna determine what kind of guns we can have all? So Cruz said, “Well, are you going to determine what books we can all read? Are you gonna determine what words can’t be said and what words can?” and liberals are not used to this. This is effrontery. This is lecturing. This is disrespect, as far as the left is concerned.

Dianne Feinstein was not happy with this, and she told Cruz not to lecture her.</blockquote>

It’s hard to believe that Cruz and Obama attended the same law school.  Cruz actually learned something.  Obama was probably too busy organizing communities and hobnobbing with Ayers & Co. to pay attention in class.  Or, given Cruz’s accurate statement about the Leftists’ in charge of the Harvard Law School classrooms, may Obama was paying too much attention.  Either way, one student graduated knowing American law, while the other student graduated knowing Karl Marx.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • donkatsu

    Don’t you think it would be a good piece of truth-in-packaging regulation to make the use of hair dye impermissible for elected officials.  We would then be more fully exposed to the decrepitude, obsolescence and, as you note, creepiness of these people.
    Anything that makes DiFi uncomfortable is probably good for the republic.  And note that Durbin’s rejoinder was about what some specific reading material contains – a functional test not a proscribed list, with due process safeguards – as is not the case in the DiFi bill.

  • Charles Martel

    DiFi’s unfortunate political career was extended almost 35 years thanks to Dan White’s assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and gaydom’s favorite papier-mache hero, Harvey Milk.
    DiFi, president of the Board of Supervisors at the time, was slowly backing out of public life when the murders thrust her into the mayor pro tem position. She was a calming and steady force, moderate at the time, on a city in great distress. She later won the mayoralty in her own right and served two terms.
    Alas, once she got to Washington, she moved lefter and lefter, though she’s never quite reached the Looney Tune level of Babs Boxer. Still, she is a classic example of Democratic privilege: wealthy, rabidly feminist, a Stanford grad, and pretend devout Jew, at one time smart as a whip and now reduced to employing the hyper-emotional non-logic so favored by 13-year-old girls, college professors, and “journalists.”

  • MacG

    If I was on DiFi’s team I would have asked about the fourth amendment parole searches that are performed without warning 24/7.  But then that seems to be a voluntary condition to get out early but it is an abridgment to an unalienable right is it not?  

  • Mike Devx

    It seems to me that with the ban on fully automatic rifles, we have already conceded the principle that the government can restrict firearms.  I’ve heard no one argue that we should overturn that ban.
    Senator Cruz’ question could have been answered very easily by pointing to such examples, I think.  And I think he knows it.  But he threw the question out there because he was reasonably confident that Feinstein hadn’t put any thought into the constitutionality of her bill, and that she would therefore stumble and bumble and reveal herself as a complete lightweight.  Which she promptly did, yay!  Open mouth, insert foot, wedge tightly!
    Feinstein’s bill is based on protecting the gun rights for “sports and hunting activities” only.  Restricting guns based on planned activity has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and to me the bill is clearly unconstitutional (but then again, so was ObamaCare, I thought, and, um, a greater mind than mine such as John Roberts disagreed).  The criteria for which weapons are to be banned and not banned are utterly ludicrous.  Many restrictions are chosen based on appearance only, not functionality.  It’s banned if it has a certain type of grip???  Say what?  Maybe we should allow only pastels, especially ensuring that we ban glossy black.  But Feinstein didn’t have to answer to that damning charge.

  • bizcor

    Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have shown some Moxi. Lets hope this will encourage more Tea Party Conservatives to one speak up, and two run in 2014

  • Spartacus

    As recently as 1939, the Supremes still remembered the insurrectionist intent of the Second Amendment, actually ruling against the gun owner in United States v. Miller because they reasoned that his gun was insufficiently military in nature to enjoy protection under the Second Amendment.  It was the collection of cannon at Concord that Gen. Gage’s troops were after, and the Founders remembered that well.
    If you pointed that out to DiFi, I think her head would explode.

  • lethargic

    As much as I agree with you on every other point, I ask you — all of you — please to stop mocking aging women because they are aging.  With luck, it happens to us all.  Unfortunately, most women do not age as well as do men, according to contemporary standards of beauty and attractiveness.  And of course, women are expected to look better than men in almost all circumstances … why aren’t the feminists taking on that cultural norm?  But I digress.  Please stop mocking aging women for doing their best to look their best, whether it’s Nan’s Botox or Di’s Dye or whatnot.  I personally make vastly different choices than those women have made, but I wouldn’t want someone mocking me for my minimalism, either.  Fair is fair, folks. 

  • lee

    DiFi’s retort of child pornography as a way freedom of speech/press is limited by the government is a bad analogy. Child pornography is a limit on what you can do with your speech/or pressand is comparable more to laws against using guns for illegal purposes–such as murder, armed robbery, etc., and the way those laws “limit” the second amendment. 

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    lethargic, I am an aging woman myself, so I do appreciate your point of view.  The reason I mock both Pelosi and Feinstein is because they have used plastic surgery, make-up, and (I bet) botox to such an extent that they don’t look like aging women.  They don’t look human.  In their quest for youthfulness, they’ve abandoned something very fundamental, and I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, other than to point to their peculiar looks.

    Because my mother has spent the last several years in a retirement community, I’ve had the opportunity to study closely women and men aged 70 – 100.  None of these “real” people, even the women who have had a little nip-and-tuck over the years, have that peculiarly mummified face.

  • Charles Martel

    Book, I think what they’ve sacrificed is their dignity. It’s undignified to so vehemently protest the inevitability of age that you surgically turn yourself into a caricature. There’s nothing wrong with wrinkles and sags. As lethargic and my sainted mother pointed out, those happen to all of us–if we’re lucky.
    In Pelosi’s case, her self-caricaturization is doubly pitiful given her insistence that she is a devout Catholic. Were that actually the case, she would take seriously the Church’s warnings about the soul-eroding properties of vanity.